Letters to the Editor

To the Editor: Democrats in several Congressional distnicts in New York State are electing delegates in the upcoming primary to a first charter convention to be held in December in Kansas City. This is an important convention, but unfortunately it is not receiving much attention. The convention will attempt to write the first constitution for a major party, which will set the rules for governing the party.

A few weeks ago, the party commission adjourned a meeting after some participants angrily walked out. One of the issues (not too well publicized) was whether the party should be more centralized. That is, some participahts want a more “national” party, rather than fifty separate and independent state parties under the Democratic banner. They want charter that will exercise greater centralized control over the various state and local units.

This is quite difficult to achieve and is not politically wise, because this country has a federal system of governinent, not a unitary system. We elect office‐holders (from the President down) on the basis of fifty distinct electoral units, not on the basis of one national electorate. Thus, the political party structure must reflect the legal, electoral structure. One can build a national party structure, but it will not be able to function as it would in unitary system of government. And it would not have a mass base, which is essential in a loose two‐party system.

As long as office‐holders in one state do not have to appeal to constituents in another state, the American political party structure will reflect this federal form of government. One might wish to change this, but the starting point is the government, office‐holding mechanisms, not the political party structure.

This means that a “nationwide” (as opposed to a “national”) mass‐based party must seek to, build itself around issues and candidates who can appeal to a broad cross‐section of voters, hoping to form coalitions and alliances among various groupings. It must attempt to put together the kind of intra; party coalition around issues that was done, for example, in the New Deal under Roosevelt. This makes the process essentially and critically political, in the highest sense of that term.

This is just one of the very important points to be dealt with in the upcoming charter convention, and is unfortunate that more attention is not being paid to this contest by the candidates and the voters. In fact, most voters are not even aware that there are delegate contests in some Congressional districts, and, of course, they have never heard of the Kansas City Charter Convention. There are some clear differences of opinion between delegate candidates, and, in no small way, how the Democratic party structures itself in an attempt to avoid the internal divisiveness of ’68 and ’72 is at stake.

To the Editor: The public should be made aware of the highly questionable policy of our Government with relation to the security a, our embassies, and other diplomatic missions. This policy has two aspects: a

•We permit no action to defend our personnel except the retreat to the upper floors of the building even in cases of aggressive attacks where it is clear that the host government is not capable of preventing the attack (Cyprus) or does not intend to do so (as apparently true in Panama in 1964).

•Physical security requirements are given minor attention except after the fact, as in Saigon.

In Cyprus the menace of surrounding buildings should have been evident —yet there was nothing but wooded shutters to protect the interior. At another embassy, a new building inaugurated recently, every office is within the range of the surrounding apartments and office buildings, anti there are no shutters at all. I should make clear that the government in that country is completely capable and would, without doubt, stop any attack on the embassy but could hardly keep under constant surveillance the numerous apartments and offices from which a sniper could operate.

I realize that allowing our people to repulse an attack is something superpower shies away from. We do not wish to be accused of “murder” or make “martyrs” or suffer a break in relations, but I think we have enaugh experience over these last years to realize that our restraint has not helped in this regard.

It, is obvious that diplomatic protocol and safeguards can be and usually are ignored. The criminals, even when self‐declared and known, are politically absolved. Moreover, we can do something about making embassy buildings secure. Our architects have succeeded in making them look like fortresses and garnered ill will accordingly, but they are far from that.

Foreign Service officers and staff will continue to do their duty. Someone should speak out on their behalf.

LEONARD J. SACCIO Woodbury, Conn., Aug. 29, 1974‐The writer is a former U.S. Ambassador to Colombia.

A Question of Consistency

To the Editor: Regarding this morning's announcement of the increase in the price of The New York Times:

On one hand you deplore and vociferate against the havoc wrought by the current inflation.

On the other hand you smugly and arbitrarily raise the price of the daily newspaper by 33 1/3 per cent. Are you being consistent?

MARK FIRESTONE New York, Aug. 29, 1974

A Copyright Compromise

To the Editor: On July 1, a New York Times editorial praised the “substantial cornpromises” in the latest revision of the new proposed copyright bill. As The Times explained, “schools and libraries have been allowed the right to uncompensated reproduction of copyright material, provided that this is done by fair use’ instead of through indiscriminate copying.”

This was followed by letters to The Times condemning the photocopy compromise—one letter claiming that scholarship needed unlimited reproduction, while another charged that “fair use” copying might well end the production of scholarly writing.

Everyone is right, but what, then, is the solution? The new hardware of the Xerox Corporation and other now makes it, possible for us to copy software (i.e., intellectual property) mechanically—and cheaply. And there is no way to oheck on whether the hardware is copying copyrighted or non‐copyrighted material. The same situation exists in regard to the reproduction of music on electronic tape. And the problem will become increasingly important with the advent of home reproduction of telecasts.

I proposed a solution to the photci copy problem in, my statement before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights of the Senate. Committee on the Judiciary in its hearings of July 31 and August 1, 1973. The proposal was that “10‐per cent of the net cost of reprography should go to the copyright proprietors of the intellectual property being photocopied:”

This would mean that 10 per cent of the retail price or rental cost of all photocopy machinery should be turned over to an organization representing publishers and authors for distribution to its nembership. This organization would be similar in nature to ASCAP, which collects and distributes monies for the performance of copyright materials. (Note that under Article 53 of Germany's Copyright Act of 1965 there is a flat fee of per cent on the sale of all Tisual or sound recorders which is given to an organization repiesenting composers and music publishers for distribution to the creators of that intellectual property.)

Let scholars use the latest and best hardware at will to foster their research. But let us also pay the creators of the software which is being researched.

To the Editor: I urge all of your readers who are enrolled Democrats to vote for Hugh Carey as the Democratic candidate for Governor in the Sept. 10 primary.

He is in my judgment a good, honest, solid, sensible and winning candidate, And now that the new Administration in Washington has lifted the curse of Watergate from those running as Republicans, we need our strongest candidate for Governor to head the ticket.

Hugh Carey is not just an issuer of press releases, position papers, benevolent yearnings and other assorted species of hot air. He is a doer. His performance in Congress shows that. So do the schools built with money he got for New York, the jobs, the health centers, the housing he brought to his own Congressional district, and the income he put in the hands of the elderly, the handicapped and the blind by his bills increasing Social Security and establishing Medicare.

He recognizes, and his 96 per cent rating last year by the League of Conservation Voters emphasizes, a concern for preserving the fragile environment which enables all of us to keep alive, and he is clearly committed to implementing that concern in New York State.

Hugh Carey has a combination of tough‐minded political experience and long‐range vision. That is what we Democrats need in a candidate for Governor, and I hope we give him a clean‐cuts victory in the September primary.

EUGENE H. NICKERSON Roslyn, L. I., Aug. 22, 1974

Why Kuh Should Win

To the Editor: In reading excerpts (Sept. 3) of the debate between Manhattan District Attorney Aichard Kut, and‐Robert M. Morgenthau at The Times; I noticed they did not contain the fact that a distinguished Committee of Trial Lawyers for Mr. Kuh has given‐him wholehearted support. The fact that Mr. Kuh has also received nonpartisan backing from two retired Chief Judges of the New York State Court of Appeals and from a past Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Division, also apparently failed to come up in the course of the dialogue.

I think this broad‐based support, from outstanding leaders in the field of criminal justice clearly indicates that. Richard Kuh has the overwhelming, respect of his professional colleagues. The list of trial lawyers, too numerous to mention, includes men and women of national repute in the legal field.

Mr. Morgenthau may be backed by the old‐line Democratic politicians, but Mr. Kuh is held in the highest esteem, by his peers. In my view, this is the endorsement that really counts. He is carrying on the finest traditions of his predecessor, the late Frank S. Hogan, whom Dick Kuh served for many years before becbming District Attorney himself.

WOODY KLEINW estport, Conn., Sept. 4, 1974

For Mary Anne Krupsalc

To the Editor:

Your endorsement Of Howard Samuels because of “twelve years of close study of the state and its problems” should have been followed by your endorsement of Senator Mary Anne Krupsak for the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor because of “fifteen years of close study of the state and its problems,” including her four years in the Assembly and two in the Senate. A careful reading of her record reveals a “courageous” “articulate” “reform‐minded” legislator whose devotion to principle earned a place on the A.C.L.U. honor roll.

N. K. MCCARTY Syracuse, N. Y„ Sept. 4, 1974

Albany Needs Spitz

To the Editor: I was sorry to, see The Times prefer George Spitz’ opponent in the Assembly race in the 66th Assembly District: I believe you were wrong.

George Spitz los been described as a quixotic eccentric—a square peg in a round hole—and that's part of the reason why I am supporting him. If our Albany Legislature has one need above all, it is for people like George who don't simply get along by going along, following the easiest course of action.

George has a remarkable record. He was among the first to advocate in 1966 that we unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam. He also was among the first to propose a code of ethics for all legislators, requiring that they reveal their net worth and all sources of income.

I hope the voters in the 66th Assembly District will be voting for George Spitz on Sept. 10 in the Democratic Primary. ‘Mark my words, he will do us all proud.